Over the past year, NOAA Fisheries developed, refined, and launched a strengthened procedure for review of recreational fishing catch and effort estimates. According to a recent NOAA Fisheries bulletin, the effort was in close collaboration with Atlantic and Gulf of America state and interstate marine fishery commission partners.
“This is an evolving process that has benefitted greatly from our regional and state partners’ local fisheries expertise and knowledge in identifying estimates that appear inconsistent with expected fishing behavior patterns or past trends, including results that could have important implications for fisheries management,” said Dr. Katherine Papacostas, program manager for the NOAA Fisheries Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP). “Their collaboration and dedication significantly enhances the recreational fishing data collection partnership and the quality of recreational fishing data used to inform stock assessments and fisheries management decisions,” she added.
This partner review process augments NOAA Fisheries’ existing internal data review quality checks. These include estimate reviews from regional experts at the agency’s regional offices and science centers.
According to NOAA Fisheries, the agency notifies state and interstate marine fisheries commission partners when preliminary catch and effort estimates are posted to the online data query tool following their estimated publication schedule. Partners then review and flag estimates requiring further investigation in their states/regions based on a series of scenarios, including:
- An unexpectedly high or low estimate for a high-profile species in comparison to other estimates in the year/season or the same 2-month period over time; or unexpected or unusual length and weight distributions
- An estimate that unexpectedly exceeds an annual catch limit by a significant amount
- An estimate for a high-profile species that unexpectedly exceeds an annual catch limit by any amount
- An estimate that is significantly misaligned with seasonal or in-season projections
- A very high or very low estimate in comparison to other estimates in the year/season or in the same period over time for species with short recreational fishing seasons
- Landings for prohibited species or species landed out of season
- A very high or very low estimate for species with pending regulation or fishery management plan changes or with near-term stock assessments
Following the timeline outlined in the procedure, NOAA Fisheries said they will investigate the flagged estimates, document the outcomes of the investigations, and ultimately share findings and any associated estimate updates with partners.
“The goal is to balance data revisions with the need to maintain data continuity and minimize disruptions for data users, as well as to ensure efficient use of staff and partner resources,” said Papacostas.
Alex DiJohnson, Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program recreational team lead, said, “It’s been really, really great so far,” adding that states feel a new sense of ownership in the estimate review process. “The states seem excited,” he noted. “They’re ready to get their hands dirty.”
NOAA Fisheries said they are also developing a new online data review tracking tool to streamline and improve efficiency of data reviews, which ultimately will serve as a comprehensive, transparent record of estimate reviews and outcomes. A prototype is anticipated by the end of 2025.
“We are committed to continuing to strengthen our relationships with partners across the recreational fishing data collection community and working together on collaborative ways to improve transparency and data quality,” said Papacostas.
The recreational catch survey known as MRIP replaced the Marine Recreational Fishing Statistical Survey (MRFSS) between 2008 and 2005 after that original survey methodology was deemed “fatally flawed” by the National Research Council. However, on August 7, 2023, NOAA Fisheries revealed that their new Fishing Effort Survey used in the MRIP process was likely overestimating angler effort by as much 30 to 40%, while admitting to “reporting errors and illogical responses” in the surveys.
